This is another from my first-ever Holga roll. In addition to setting the counter to 645 (vertical rectangles 6×4.5cm) instead of 6×6 and therefore overlapping exposures, this one was accidentally set to bulb, resulting in blurring and overexposure. I think the effect is interesting, though unintentional. Isn’t that the point?

I finally got back the first roll of film from my Holga. I always order my film “develop only,” then scan my negatives and see what’s worth printing. Since I very rarely print anything, it saves me a lot of money. As I detailed in my previous post, I managed to do an extremely good job of messing up the film by overlapping all of the exposures. I was hoping that at least one of the overlapped images would be something at least interesting, and I think it worked out. I tried to take the same shot twice, first using the “f/11” setting and then using the “f/8.” Because of my winding error, it didn’t really work out as planned. I do still think it’s interesting, though.

The first time I scanned this image, I didn’t bother to change the scan resolution. I had left it set at 2800 dpi, which produced scans from 35mm frames in the neighborhood of 10 megapixels, which was a good compromise between giant files and printable resolution. When I scanned this frame at 2800 dpi (which is somewhat cropped from the original), I ended up with a 92 megapixel image (or, to be exact, 92,390,540 pixels). While this is wonderful in theory, it meant a file of more than 227 MB, so unwieldy that it crashed Lightroom on my Macbook Pro (1536 MB RAM and a dual-core 2.0 ghz processor) when I tried to spot correct a bit of dust. It is also utterly pointless, as the Holga lens is in no way capable of resolving the level of detail that would reward this level of resolution. In spite of this, I plan on bragging about this regularly. The next time someone shooting with a D300s and an 18-55 kit lens takes a break from toggling through the auto modes to ask me about my camera, I can just say it’s 92 megapixels. (Or I can be nice – I’m not as mean as I claim to be).

In the days of film, there was negative making (“shooting”) and printmaking (“printing”). With digital, nothing has changed, the image is captured/created, then processed into a final product.

This means that sometimes you can find an old image you weren’t fond of and re-imagine the processing to get something you do. This was shot on Ilford FP4+, scanned as a negative, and processed digitally. Call it whatever you want, but it’s just stage one from one process and stage two from the other.